I am continuing my “Toolbox” series on concepts I have found useful in my travels. In this post, I share how the “Project Triangle” has become useful in my current work as a Barrier Knocker Downer. As I was finalizing the essay I realized there are overtones of the Servant-Leader principles of foresight, conceptualization, building community and stewardship embedded in the story. I left those for a future newsletter.

The story is a quick read, with a little food for thought. Comments and sharing are always welcome.

Note: These posts regularly form the basis for roundtable conversations, facilitation, and group presentations. For more information, please contact me

In this post:

Story: The project triangle: scope,time, resources

Early in my career in information technology, I balanced my time between working on small projects that could be completed within a few days and larger projects that took months to complete. As I got involved in larger projects, the number of interrelated moving parts increased and the vocabulary of project management also changed. Projects moved from todo/done to a systems development life cycle that culminated with a go-live date followed by a maintenance phase.

One of the enduring ideas that sticks with me from that time is the project triangle. Most projects can be described as a triangle of three elements: scope, time, and resources. A high level description of any project takes the form:

• What are you going to do?
• How long will it take?
• What are the resources required to complete the job?

It is common to hire an outside vendor to assist in the development and implementation of large scale information systems. The consulting engagement is a demonstration of what the project triangle looks like: it identifies who will do what, by when and how much the project will cost. Once the project gets underway, the project triangle recedes into the background, replaced by the day-to-day tasks of project management.

One of the challenges of systems implementation is scope creep, the tendency for projects to balloon as they go through the analysis and design phase. Scope creep can sometimes look like a flashback to a drug induced mindset, “Hey man, you know what would be cool is…” Or it can take the form of, “While we’re addressing this issue we could just do it right…” Both can lead to innovative ideas that are worthy of further consideration. The problem is expanding project scope requires additional time or additional resources. An alternative is to place scope expanding ideas on a “Phase II” list as a means of documenting work that is out of scope, that would conflict with contracted delivery dates or cost/resource limits.

Third party contractors sometimes use the Phase II list to avoid getting caught up in the bureaucracy of their client organizations. . One of my clients expressed the (valid) concern that Phase II never seems to get the priority it deserves. I couldn’t argue with her observation.

As time went on, my interest in information systems implementation diminished, as did much of my vision. These changes were coincidental, but I took them as a signal to move on. Neither of these transitions was as simple as it sounds, but that’s a story for another time.

The concept of the project triangle (balancing scope, time, and resources) has remained relevant in my current work with Boards of Directors and advisory committees. The scope is the group’s mission or charter, the resources are the committee members, and the time element is bound by regular reporting deadlines. A key difference between the project charter and organizational missions is that when a Phase II list is created within an information systems project, the internal team still holds onto that list for future use. Issues that fall outside the scope of an organization’s mission are often set aside or referred to another body for consideration. And, like the Phase II list, they often are never seen again.

In my research exploring organizational environments inclusive of persons with disabilities (PWD) in professional settings, I focus on ways organizational infrastructure impacts inclusion. One of the luxuries of being me is that I get to be in spaces of my own choosing and to experiment with ideas to see what happens. I have found that the things on the Phase II/set aside lists are often low hanging fruit for experiments in organizational infrastructure.

For example: I am on a committee at a local university that advises on campus accessibility. A long-standing problem for students with disabilities is the fact that many of the classrooms on campus pre-date the standards laid out in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Students regularly arrive at class at the start of the semester only to find the classroom is not accessible. Classroom assignment and student enrollment are separate business processes that don’t intersect until after the classroom has been assigned. Resolving the problem involves addressing the accessibility issue, possibly reassigning the class location, and ensuring that everyone associated with the course enrollment is notified of the change. I raised the issue of the conflict that arises when the business process of assigning classrooms to course offerings intersects with student enrollment. Thanks to good work on the part of a few administrators, a database was identified that holds descriptive information about classroom features, including accessibility information. Problem solved! Victory achieved!… Sort of.

How this information gets into the hands of the students who need it is still an open loop. I happen to participate in another group that includes students who would benefit from having access to the database. The next step is defining the business processes that would allow students to access the classroom information, understand their options as students, and to act upon those options. This work is outside of the scope of the committee on campus accessibility and will surely go beyond the scope of the student organization.

I find great satisfaction in bridging gaps in organizational infrastructure. The fun, and sometimes the frustration, comes in recognizing gaps that can be addressed through making simple connections among people or organizations. In the case of the classroom database, the information was already available, just not known by the individuals who could most benefit from it.

Two things energize me in my role as a Barrier Knocker Downer:

1. Organizational capacity can often be significantly increased by making simple connections
2. There are many people who genuinely want to improve the lives of those around them but either don’t know how to communicate the work they do and/or the significance of their work is not recognized as an important element of organizational infrastructure

Get these posts in your inbox

You can get these posts in your inbox. Click here to join my mailing list.

For more information