why compromise on quality to finish a project on time and save a few pence?

Question

For example,

Answer 1

If you've agreed the deadline and you had to pay for any delays in finishing the project, would you still let the project drag on?

Answer 2

From the point of view of the PM (a lousy one I must add), there might be penalties to be paid if the project is delayed. Hence it is to the PM's advantage to deliver sub-par stuff on time.

Form the point of view of the client (the organisation for which the project is being undertaken), a project is often not an end in itself, but a component of something bigger. Therefore the ramifications of the delay can be worse than a slight decrease in quality, compensated by lower cost.

Form the point of view of the hirer (the actual person who chose the PM and the team as opposed to the organisation), a delay is a black mark, whereas lower quality can be disguised and savings are always a plus point. So as long as the decrease in quality isn't that obvious...

Answer 3

The three important parameters for delivery of any project are time, quality and cost. A good project manager delivers on all three.

Answer 4

I agree.

Good / cheap / fast - You can only pick 2.

If you think you can deliver them all then you have clearly decided that quality will bear the brunt of 'the human factor' which dictates the sucess of any project.

Answer 5

Why quote a time in the first place if you are not sure you can stick to it? When people base their plans on your assurances then you should deliver the agreed quality within the agreed timeframe.

Answer 6

Typical Arts & Humanities attitude.

Get of your a** and finish on time.

Answer 7

Time is money