Skip to main content

Agile Tetrahedron move above the PM Triangle for Value

Agile Tetrahedron - ver 1
Who can explain the classic Project Management Triangle?  I've found that everyone has heard of it and uses it fairly well in a sentence. But when it comes to actually explaining the analogy to the triangle the struggles begin.  Some call it the iron triangle - as if nothing can stretch or shrink it's features once set.  I created a plastic triangle that was adjustable to illustrate the nature of negotiation of each of the sides.


I want to move beyond the classic three variable problem of the project (scope, schedule & cost) and envision a model that describe the value that a project represents while maintaining the constraint relationship that these classic triangular relationships represent.  Enter the Tetrahedron - a platonic solid.  The tetrahedron has four faces, each face is a triangle, it is the simplest form of a pyramid with the base in the form of a triangle.

Highsmith's Agile Triangle
Jim Highsmith introduce the concept of treating the PM triangle of cost, schedule, and scope as constraints in his Agile Triangle by adding a fractal triangle at the vertex of his triangle of value, quality and constraints.  While other's had explained the iron triangle as having an aspect of quality on the inside that one obviously would never vary.  Well then if one is not varying quality while do we talk so much about technical debt?  Jim does a great job explaining that the traditional aspects are constraints and that the desire of a business is to derive out of these constraints something of significantly larger value than constraint space represents.

"Quality is a value to some person."  -- Jerry Winberg
Discussing this with my colleague Rick Stephenson we envisioned a more physical and tactile model.  A model that retained the constraints concept from Highsmith, but added the multiple aspects of value -- business, technical and customer value.  We desired to represent these three types of value as separate and independent aspects that must be attended to by the project team while staying within the constraints.  Yet it is the desire of the project's sponsors to raise the values as high as possible while minimizing the surface area of the constraint space.  When these desires are modeled in the tetrahedron with physical objects one can start to get a gut feeling for the tradeoffs that directors and managers must make in the project.  Build upon a small constraint base and the pyramid may become unstable.  Imagine the table upon which you are building your model to be the platform for your application - when the platform is shaky and unstable the application needs much more base surface area to attain a sufficient height (values).

In the model of the Agile Tetrahedron I made above I cut the business value face a bit and the technical value face even lower.  The idea was to show that those faces may not be completely required to deliver customer value within a given release (constraint).  Yet, one can see that extending that idea to an extreme may prove dangerous with a shaky platform.

Agile Tetrahedron model: print, cut, fold, play...
PDF of Agile Tetrahedron model ver 2.3 - print, cut, fold, play...

See Also:
Check out the Kickstarter Troxes - a new kind of tetrahedron-origami

How to make the classic PM Iron triangle  out of plastic drinking straws.
Beyond Scope, Schedule, and Cost: The Agile Triangle by Jim Highsmith
Patterns in Nature - Is there a fractal nature to the universe?


Post a Comment

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

Exercise:: Definition of Ready & Done

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?



Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: http://tinyurl.com/3br9o6n. Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, …

Elements of an Effective Scrum Task Board

What are the individual elements that make a Scrum task board effective for the team and the leadership of the team?  There are a few basic elements that are quite obvious when you have seen a few good Scrum boards... but there are some other elements that appear to elude even the most servant of leaders of Scrum teams.









In general I'm referring to a physical Scrum board.  Although software applications will replicated may of the elements of a good Scrum board there will be affordances that are not easily replicated.  And software applications offer features not easily implemented in the physical domain also.





Scrum Info Radiator Checklist (PDF) Basic Elements
Board Framework - columns and rows laid out in bold colors (blue tape works well)
Attributes:  space for the total number of stickies that will need to belong in each cell of the matrix;  lines that are not easy eroded, but are also easy to replace;  see Orientation.

Columns (or Rows) - labeled
    Stories
    To Do
    Work In P…

Webinar: Collaboration at Scale: Defining Done, Ready, and NO.

I was invited to participate in a Scrum Alliance Webinar.  Maybe you would like to listen to us in a discussion of techniques to collaborate at scale (remotely and with many people).  The topic is one that I've got some experience in discussions - yet I never seem to get to done...
Collaboration at Scale: Defining Done and Ready and NO for Distributed Teams
With Joel Bancroft-Connors, Agile Organizational Coach; David A. Koontz, Agile Transition Guide; and Luke Hohmann, CEO and Founder of Conteneo, Inc.


14 February 2018 11 a.m. ET (USA).




The Scrum Guide is pretty clear on the criticality of the definition of Done: "When a Product Backlog item or an Increment is described as "Done," everyone must understand what "Done" means. However, the Scrum Guide ALSO says that the definition of Done can "vary significantly per Scrum Team." This leads us to examine when and how the definition of Done should vary, how distributed teams should cr…

A T-Shaped 21st Century Knowledge Worker

Knowledge workers in the 21st Century must have many areas of deep knowledge, while also be capable of collaboration across multiple other domains with dissimilar T-shaped individuals.  This description of a person is a metaphor.  Compare it to the shape of the "I" in the classic saying there is no "I" in Team.


I first read about Scott Ambler's term "Generalizing Specialist" - but it's so hard to remember the proper order of the words... get it backwards and it has an inverted meaning... T-Shaped is easier to remember. 
A generalizing specialist is someone who:
Has one or more technical specialties (e.g. Java programming, Project Management, Database Administration, ...). Has at least a general knowledge of software development. Has at least a general knowledge of the business domain in which they work. Actively seeks to gain new skills in both their existing specialties as well as in other areas, including both technical and domain areas.  General…

A FAILURE to Communicate

I was working with a failing team some time ago.  I use "failing" to describe the outcome of the team - not the people on the team.  Are you OK with that description?



An issue arrose in the stand up - a team member that was to verify the quality of a procedure did so and reported that there were a few records that didn't match expectation in the data set.  Upon inquire the number of records not matching was over 2000.  Most people acknowledged immediately the exaggeration - I could tell by the laughter.  After about 10 minutes of discussing the details of the problem - it appeared the team had a handle on the specific situation.

I stopped the discussion and inquired if they could name the impediment.  One team member did a great job of describing the impediment as a _communication gap_.  Wonderful - I could work with that - the problem had a name and it didn't include anyones Proper Name.

"If the problem has a first name; we are going to have a problem."

I&#…