Two people debate how to answer a question about who caused a project delay. They show three ways to respond: too vague, too detailed, or just right. The balanced answer names the vendor's missed deadline and the team's scope expansion without getting lost in the weeds.
So let's say that there is a project delay and you're explaining in an all hands meeting why this big project was delayed. And one of the execs asks, was the delay our fault or the vendor's fault? So an answer that is too high altitude would be something like it was both of our fault. Okay. And then just ending there, something that is too low altitude would be getting into the nitty gritty of well, in January we started.
This project. By March we were a bit delayed. Then in June we re soaked the project. And then later that month, the vendor also missed a deadline. And so really it was a bit of their fault and a bit of our.
Fault. Right. And then, you know, going into a lot more detail there. Right. So that would be too low altitude. And something that is, I would say a right amount of altitude would be to say it was probably a bit of both of our faults. The vendor missed a deadline, which pushed the timing back. But we also expanded the scope, which meant that we needed to add a couple more weeks to be able to finish the project.