A different view by Jaime Porta

In the world of digital transformation and project management, the “Quality-Price-Time” triangle has been a guiding framework, helping to set expectations, prioritize, and ensure alignment with stakeholders. Often, I remind my colleagues and clients that when embarking on any new project or request, the real challenge is balancing these three dimensions. I always tell them we can work in three different ways: great, fast, or cheap—but you can only choose two. The trade-off is simple but powerful: we can only optimize for two out of the three. It’s a straightforward principle that underpins our decision-making and ultimately shapes outcomes.

So, when a colleague or client approaches with an ambitious request, I ask them to think carefully about what matters most:

• Great and Fast, but Not Cheap: If quality and speed are the highest priorities, then there’s an implicit agreement to allocate sufficient resources to achieve both. This is particularly common in situations where a rapid market entry or urgent response to competitive pressures is essential. For instance, a company launching a new digital product might prioritize an impeccable user experience and fast delivery, understanding that quality requires specialized talent and tools. The cost of skilled developers, designers, and agile methodologies can quickly add up, but the result—a polished, timely solution—can justify the expense.
• Great and Cheap, but Not Fast: On the other hand, projects where quality and cost control are paramount require a more extended timeline. When the focus is on delivering excellent work while staying within budget, a more deliberate, phased approach is needed. This can suit projects that have a well-defined scope but aren’t immediately urgent—say, upgrading a CRM system with custom features but without the pressure of an imminent launch. By giving more time, we can work around budget constraints and ensure quality without incurring premium costs for expedited resources.
• Fast and Cheap, but Not Great: For projects where speed and cost savings outweigh the need for top-notch quality, the goal shifts toward delivering “good enough” results quickly. This often applies to initial pilots or internal tools where immediate functionality is more important than perfection. Teams might opt for minimum viable products (MVPs) or rapid prototypes, aiming to deploy something usable without the expense of exhaustive quality assurance.

Finding the Optimal Balance: A Strategic Conversation

These choices aren’t arbitrary but reflect the reality that resources are finite, and priorities must align with strategic goals. When discussing new requests, I find it helpful to ask my colleagues or clients which two aspects of the triangle they prioritize most. This question does more than set the groundwork for the project; it opens a strategic conversation that clarifies their expectations and enables me to propose the most suitable solution.

Often, companies wrestle with finding the “perfect” combination, where everything can be delivered excellently, swiftly, and affordably. But the triangle reminds us of the compromises inherent in real-world projects. For example, an organization might lean toward the “great and fast” route for market-sensitive projects but choose “great and cheap” when refining long-term infrastructure.

A Guiding Compass for Future Projects

In a world where digital transformations and fast-changing market dynamics drive rapid decision-making, the quality-price-time triangle is a compass. It helps us frame discussions with stakeholders and ensures that projects remain focused, aligned, and realistic. Instead of succumbing to the allure of unrealistic expectations, organizations that embrace this principle find they can consistently deliver outcomes that align with their strategic priorities, even if it means making tough choices.

By guiding these conversations thoughtfully, we don’t just manage projects; we manage expectations. This transparency lays the foundation for successful outcomes, as teams and stakeholders are on the same page, fully aware of the path they’ve chosen and the destination they’re headed toward.