Your first task is to define your project with precision. And there are three critical elements to that project definition. The first two of those are goals and objectives. The thing about goals and objectives is there is no unique definition of a goal, an open objective the dictionaries are equivocal on matter, and these are not carefully defined project management terms. So, the definition, the definitions that I'm going to give you are useful, they may not be identical to other definitions you receive. but crucially, what I'm going to do is to distinguish between a goal on the one hand and an objective on the other It's the distinction that matters.

And if you understand the distinction, then you can create both a goal and objectives for your project. And all will be well. So let's start off with a goal. I'm going to define a goal as something that answers a very simple question, arguably the most important question in the world. What do you want? And that's going to be the first question that you ask to your boss, to your clients to your sponsor.

What do you want? The goal sets out the whole aim of the project? objectives? On the other hand, answer a slightly different question. They answer the question, how do you want it? So what objectives do is they put constraints around the project constraints around the goal, they say?

Back to be wholly successful. It's not just a matter of achieving your goal, but we need to achieve your objectives as well. So, let me give you a very simple example, the example of the NASA moon mission back in the 60s and 70s, the Apollo moon mission, the goal, and the objectives was stated in a way that was very similar to this this nation commits before the end of the decade, to put a man on the moon and return him safely. The goal there is clear to put a man on the moon. But Kennedy's stated objectives were to do it firstly by the end of the decade, and second, to return the man safely to Earth as well. You can achieve your goal of putting someone on the moon but to be truly worth while he wants you to do it within a fixed timescale and also in a way that was safe.

So let's have a closer look at objectives. They're clearly very important. And they come in three flavors. The first of our objectives is time, or schedule. And some projects are fundamentally driven by deadlines, by a time imperative. And I would argue that every project that is driven by a time imperative is fundamentally driven by politics.

The Communist example, I suppose, are regulatory or legislative driven projects where you have to comply with new legislation by a deadline. But of course in organizations not every project is driven By legislation, but very often, the time driven projects are driven by someone with seniority in authority standing up on his or her hind legs, and declaring We will do this by such and such date. And that's politics. Someone once said to me, the trouble with that mic is that one of the most important projects you lead as a project manager was the year 2000 projects. And you may remember that, as we came up to the year 2000, there was a serious concern that a large amount of electronic equipment would fail when the date rolled over from 1999 to 2000. Surely that can't be politics.

That's technology. That's the clock. You can't do anything about that. Well, all you have to do is to ask yourself, why the millennia fell when it did. And you come back to home, Gregory making a decision about change. Using a calendar from the Julian calendar to what we use now, the Gregorian calendar, that was one man standing up on his hind legs making a pronouncement.

The second type of objective that we find our cost objectives and cost objectives often comes to the fore when we are constrained in our budget. We must deliver to a budget. But one of the things I've observed in organizational projects is very few projects are truly driven by cost considerations. The true considerations are usually to deliver the goals by a deadline to a specification. And we're actually optimizing for cost rather than being driven by it. And Kennedy, of course, didn't mention cost.

We'll come back to that. The final objective that we tend to focus on our quality objectives and Kennedy was really focused on this and the type of quality objective he was focused on. Were health and safety related, wherever there are safety related or health concerns, then you would expect your project to have a primary quality driver. But again, a lot of organizational projects, things can go wrong but rarely involve health and safety. paper cuts maybe. But for a lot of organizations, the thing that drives quality to the fore is not health and safety.

It is concerned for reputation wherever reputation is at stake. Again, I would expect to see quality comes to the fore in defining the project. So why is it that Kennedy didn't mention cost? Well, I think the answer is because having sat down a requirement that the astronauts had to return safely, both for health and safety and reputational reasons and having set a target date, he had to recognize that NASA would come up with a plan and a budget. And he had to pay what it costs because projects are new, novel unique things and nothing was newer, or more novel or more unique, that time going to the moon, and it still is. So NASA would then optimize for the cost by creating a budget that allows them to achieve the goal within the timescale to the quality standards.

And at that point, the third corner of the time, cost quality triangle is locked in place. So whilst the time cost quality triangle, as it's called, in the UK, also known as the Iron Triangle in the United States, is, those are the most common names for it. And they represent the fact that as a triangle, it's a strongest shape in nature, it's impossible to perform. I'm reminded of two other names for this, because the time cost quality triangle is also called the triangle of balance. When NASA set the budget, then the three corners come into balance. If you spend this much money, you can get this much quality in this much time.

The other name for it, I think it's the most useful to us as project managers. It's also called the triple constraint, because the three corners constrain one another. If your client, if your boss comes up to you and says, Mike, we need done to a higher quality standard. My answer is you can't have that unless you're prepared to spend more time or invest more money or more resources. And likewise, if the client says we want it sooner, you can have it sooner, but only if you're prepared either to put more resources or money into it, or to cut some corners and reduce the quality. And finally, if you want it cheaper, you can have it cheaper, but you can only have it cheaper.

If you take longer to do it or cut corners. These three corners constraints In one another, it is the triple constraint. So if the most important question you can ask your clients or your boss or your director is, what do you want? The next most important question is Where are your priorities on the triangle. And I think President Kennedy will almost certainly a police x, somewhere on the line between time and quality, and probably for good political reasons, closer to the quality corner into the time corner. And for a project manager.

That point gives us our compass bearing for every decision we're going to make. And the thing I tell people learning project management, is that the time cost quality triangle is arguably your most important project management concept. It will never, ever answer any of your questions. But it will make crystal clear that decisions you have to make. Because you're always going to be around trading off the relative importance of time, cost and quality. If you've got a clear direction to go from your client or from your boss, then those decisions become easier.

More on this and what to do when your client or boss says you can't have more time, you can't have more money. You can't cut corners in the next lecture