Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
 
PerlMonks  

Re^4: Make it good

by Tanktalus (Canon)
on Feb 21, 2005 at 15:08 UTC ( #433072=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^3: Make it good
in thread Make it good

Does it matter if, at the deadline, I'm hopelessly over budget and it still doesn't work yet? Or, at the end of the budget, I'm going to get it to work at the deadline, continuing the same course through money? Either way, you're still likely looking at a project getting killed. Just as likely as your scenario, I think, because given more time and budget, you might be able to take the deliverable and make it work.

If there is a business ordering to this, it's not transparently obvious to me. Different managers/corporations would treat each of the three failures (working, deadline, budget) differently. radiantmatrix's other goals aren't even on the same page as these three, but the ordering between these three is blurry to me.


Comment on Re^4: Make it good
Re^5: Make it good
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Feb 21, 2005 at 15:13 UTC
    Here's the way I look at it - budget and time are the same resource. Both are opportunity costs. You could've spent that money differently and you could've spent that time differently.

    So, the question is which is more important - meeting your OV (opportunity-value) budget or delivering something that works? Well, it doesn't matter if the the OV budget is met if it doesn't work. If it does work, then it doesn't matter if you blew your OV budget because you have a working product that will start to generate additional OV.

    Now, there is an argument about time-to-market, but that is just a modifier to your product's expected OV generation. Essentialy, either it works or it doesn't. You can't be somewhat pregnant.

    Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
    Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
    Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
    Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.

      I think that almost proved my point about different people (management) looking at things differently. Others would look at the OV and determine that the ROI isn't going to be worth it if we continue throwing good money after bad. Depending on what acceptable ROI is to the company, and what $$$s are involved in the budget/time, it may no longer be worth continuing to spend money on a project, and instead focus on a new project with greater ROI by moving people to the new project.

      Perhaps for internal-use-only projects where the only ROI is increased employee productivity, continuing to spend on a late project makes sense. A lot of sense. For projects that result in off-the-shelf software, how you spend additional money and time may take on a different hue, especially if the project in question is not a critical aspect of a flagship product.

      Often you can meet the deadline and budget if you reduce the scope. This means that you don't deliver what was originally specified - so by that measure you deliver something that doesn't work. However, management are often happy with something that delivers 95% - that works well enough - if it delivers on time.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://433072]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others meditating upon the Monastery: (10)
As of 2014-10-20 21:40 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    For retirement, I am banking on:










    Results (92 votes), past polls