“The Iron Triangle is a representation of the most basic criteria by which project success is measured, namely, whether the project is delivered by the due date, within budget, and to some agreed level of quality, performance, or scope” (Pollack, Helm, & Adler, 2018, p. 528). For my project, I am choosing cost and time with sacrifice to quality. I say this because, I was required to cut my project budget by $250,000.00. In doing so, my only option was to sacrifice quality.
As I see it, this is not a surprise at all, just the price of doing business (no pun intended). For most projects, cost and time are deal-breakers and without meeting them, the project will be awarded to someone who can cut quality and meet cost and time. I do not see this as so much a negative; I feel this is a routine event associated with business and project management. The solution in my case was to balance out or evenly disperse the loss, making the cut in quality less visible.
My opinion about the iron triangle is that it never remains static. In a prefect word, all sides can be fully met, but in most cases, it becomes a give and take of all sides. When any one side of the triangle is significantly impacted, I would agree that the significant imbalance is related to unmanageable demands of the customer that real sacrifice the integrity of the project all together. The Iron Triangle is a way of reminding clients that when it comes to implementing a project, you cannot have it all. Big, fast, or cheap—pick two (Blaich, & Wise, 2018, p. 73).