This article is the second in a series that will look at some of the issues related to managing projects within the not-for-profit and public sectors. It focuses on providing you with more practical tips and tools that can be used easily, and avoids discussing more conceptual topics within project management. This article will look at the second step, which is defining the scope of a project.

Introduction

In her typical flamboyant style, my friend Lola rushed into the coffee shop where I was patiently waiting for her to arrive from her first meeting with the project team. The executive director had asked them to create a donors’ database, and Lola suddenly found herself managing the project. As she became increasingly embroiled in the project, I became increasingly aware that my free time was going to be spent in this very coffee shop, providing her with advice.

Lola was ambivalent about the success of the first meeting. She had reviewed the Project Overview Statement that I discussed with her last time, and everyone seemed to agree on why they were doing the project. However, the project team had difficulty with the Project Scope, and in particular, defining exactly what they were going to produce. Lola felt that they should create a basic database and “cheat sheets” to guide the people who were to use the database. The project team wanted to create a more sophisticated database and provide training because they felt that it would better serve the needs of the organization. She agreed that it would ultimately be more useful, but did not feel they had the necessary skills to provide good training. More importantly, the executive director had already approved her budget, and it did not include money for training.

I sympathize with Lola because all project managers find themselves in the same situation (usually more often than not). The project sponsor (i.e. the one paying the bills) asks the project manager to add more products or services while staying within budget. Or her budget is cut and she still has to deliver the same products or services. Lola is being asked to increase the scope of the deliverables from what was originally agreed upon, but is not being given any more money to do it. Her predicament is a classic example of the tensions described by The Theory of Triple Constraints.

Theory of Triple Constraints

The Theory of Triple Constraints is a basic but powerful and important premise in project management. The key goal of project management is to ensure that the Triple Constraints remains in equilibrium (and to get the project done, of course).

Imagine a triangle. The three sides of the triangle are the project constraints, and act as the boundaries of the project. The constraints of the project are:

• Scope – The deliverables that the project team must create and the activities required to create them. Scope also includes the quality of the work or deliverables that need to be created.
• Cost – The budget or cost to deliver the project.
• Schedule – The deadline by which the project must be delivered.

 

 

The scope of Lola’s project included a donors’ database, cheat sheets, and a training session on how to use the application. They also had to be of a certain quality. Lola never told me the budget amount for the project, but said that the project had to competed in time for a fundraising campaign in the new year.

Relationship between Scope, Cost, and Schedule

Lola’s role as project manager is to maintain equilibrium among the sides of the triangle. She based her budget and schedule on what would be required to deliver the project scope. The budget, schedule, and scope are balanced. However, the executive director and the project team wanted to increase the scope of the project. They wanted to add more deliverables.

Imagine the scope side of the triangle increasing. To do so, either the cost or schedule side must also increase. If the scope grows, Lola will need more money or more time. One of the other constraints, and usually both of them, has to increase to maintain the balance. Similarly, if the executive director were to cut her budget or want it delivered more quickly, Lola would need to decrease the project scope.

Another Way to Maintain Balance

It is often not possible to increase the project budget to accommodate changes in the project scope, especially in the not-for-profit and public sectors. Funders usually offer a fixed amount of money and are not likely to increase the budget. Lola experienced the same difficulty. The executive director was adamant that training be provided to the staff, thereby increasing the scope of the project. Lola would somehow have to increase the number of project deliverables without increasing the budget, but still get the project done on time.

I reminded Lola that the scope is actually composed of deliverables, quality, and activities. Therefore, she could maintain the balance by increasing the number of deliverables while decreasing the quality of the work or reducing the number of activities. Lola, being a perfectionist, objected to decreasing the quality of the work, so I had to explain myself further.

In her original plan, she decided that the training manual would be edited by every other person on the project team. Each would bring a unique point of view and provide valuable insight. This would have been a wise move if she had the budget to do so. However, she did not. I told Lola to consider reducing the number of editors to one. The time that she would save by freeing those people up could be spent creating and delivering the training for people. There may be a few more spelling errors in the training manual, but at least she would be able to include training as a deliverable without increasing the project budget.

Summary

There is a direct relationship among the scope, cost, and schedule of any project. Increasing scope usually necessitates modifying cost and schedule. Decreasing cost or schedule necessitates modifying the scope. The project sponsor should identify the most important aspect of the project. Is it to maintain the budget and deliver on time, while possibly sacrificing the scope of work? Or is it more important to meet the project scope, while potentially making sacrifices in the budget and schedule? It is an easy concept to understand, but often hard to remember when you get lost in the excitement and momentum of the project.

The Theory of Triple Constraints is one of the most basic and critical concepts of project management. Besides giving you fodder for the next time your funder wants to cut your budget while maintaining the same project scope, this article has hopefully introduced you to this very important concept, and has given you a few tips on how to creatively maintain the balance among scope, cost, and schedule.

Keep this article in a handy place because we will continue to draw on this concept in future articles.

Blair Witzel (blair@mcdoane.com) is a member of the Project Management Institute and a consultant with McDonnell Doane + Associates, an information management and technology firm focusing on the not-for-profit and public sectors. His work centres on managing multi-project portfolios and working with organizations to develop project management methodologies to more effectively deliver projects.