The ideal is to define, project and measure time, cost, scope and risk when trying to achieve a goal, however, there is a cost associated with each measurement (lets call it COM):
results = measurement of scope;
time spent = measurement of time;
cost expended = measurement of cost;
risk observed = measurement of risk
When Cost + COM(results, time, cost, risk) > benefit of goal, you cut back on costs or measurement or lose money.
When (Observed Risk w/ Measurement - Observed Risk w/o Measurement) > COM(results, time, cost, risk), you measure everything. Otherwise you find an optimization of what to measure and what not to.
Something like a lawyer, its expensive to measure absolute results a lot of times, so measuring time makes sense. Similarly, a software contractor working on an ambiguously defined scope is probably best to measure hours, as the expected results may be unclear.
In a large organization, the COM(results,time,cost,risk) is often much less than the prospect of losing sales due to project delays. It increases overhead, but it may be the most rational choice to measure everything. In particular, measuring time is critical, because it can serve as a metric to accurately estimate the perceived risk of the next project.
In the case of a tech startup, Mr. Tenner is probably right on, because measuring results vs project scope is more straightforward in a small team, however, measuring risk, and time is expensive. You take your best guess at risk, keep your costs as low as possible, then measure your results to make sure you are on the right track.
results = measurement of scope; time spent = measurement of time; cost expended = measurement of cost; risk observed = measurement of risk
When Cost + COM(results, time, cost, risk) > benefit of goal, you cut back on costs or measurement or lose money.
When (Observed Risk w/ Measurement - Observed Risk w/o Measurement) > COM(results, time, cost, risk), you measure everything. Otherwise you find an optimization of what to measure and what not to.
Something like a lawyer, its expensive to measure absolute results a lot of times, so measuring time makes sense. Similarly, a software contractor working on an ambiguously defined scope is probably best to measure hours, as the expected results may be unclear.
In a large organization, the COM(results,time,cost,risk) is often much less than the prospect of losing sales due to project delays. It increases overhead, but it may be the most rational choice to measure everything. In particular, measuring time is critical, because it can serve as a metric to accurately estimate the perceived risk of the next project.
In the case of a tech startup, Mr. Tenner is probably right on, because measuring results vs project scope is more straightforward in a small team, however, measuring risk, and time is expensive. You take your best guess at risk, keep your costs as low as possible, then measure your results to make sure you are on the right track.