One thing I didnt quite get:
> Every project is a triangle made of time, money, and quality; shortening the length of one side necessarily lengthens one or—more often—both of the other sides.
If I'm assuming the longer a side is, the "more" of it that is required, then the way I understand it is that the "quality" side might need to rather be "inverse quality", such that shortening the quality side length increases quality. As per the original statement, a reduction in quality (shortening the quality length) increases time and/or money, whereas IME when building something out, quality results come at a (time/money) cost. I guess it half makes sense if the perspective is that defering on quality (shortening the line) costs more in the long run (increasing length of the other 2 lines). But then taken from the perspective of the other 2 sides of the triangle: reducing money or time doesnt result in an increase (longer side) of quality... typically the opposite.
So genuine question: did I misunderstand the point?