3 is the Magic Number. Cheating the PDQ

Selling and communicating value can be difficult.

A common problem, particularly in the event industry, can be balancing the dreaded PDQ Triangle, whilst delivering an exciting, engaging event experience. I’m going to try and explain?the triangle from the point of view of someone that deals with it on a day-to-day basis.

What's a PDQ Triangle…?

It’s often called the PDQ Triangle, sometimes the Impossible Triangle. Or sometimes the Project Management Triangle. Or sometimes the Iron Triangle. And my personal fave; the Triple Constraint.

Okay so it’s got loads of funky names. But what’s it for...?

It’s a graphic aid which illustrates the opposition and biases of sales and project management; namely Price, Design and Quality. Sometimes the words are changed, to include ‘Scope’, ‘Cost’ or ‘Time’. The basic idea is that one side of the triangle cannot be changed without affecting at least one of the other sides. Often both of them.

For example, if a delivery date is brought forward, either the project will cost more to rush, and the price will rise (in terms of additional resources being suddenly required), or the quality needs to be lessened (as in the finishes may have to simpler, or the actual scope of work may have to be reduced given the shorter lead-time). Or maybe a mix of both gut-wrenching options.

Another example: A project budget is suddenly cut, so the quality may have to be lessened, or the delivery date may need to be pushed back. Or again, maybe a mix of both.

All very interesting.

But does it relate to Exhibition Design & Build...?

This principle has been a benchmark of Project Management in areas where a more ‘Quantity-Surveyed’ approach to project planning is key; (civil engineering, architecture, even retail fit-out).?

But my question is, does it relate to exhibitions & events, and if so, do we have tricks to beat the triangle...?

Firstly, there are some unique circumstances with events and exhibitions. The event dates are basically fixed, and a contractor/supplier will rarely need to construct or deliver their product ahead of the show (unless maybe they’re pre-building a stand, as we at Tecna always do).? So therefore, that Design constraint isn’t really changeable. Well at least that’s one down, two to go...? ?But alas, no. ?Realistically, that’s a disadvantage to PDQ flexibility, as if one side is ‘locked’, that puts the pressure on just the other two to do all the work. A bit like Bros.

So that leaves Price and Quality. Most people in the exhibition & events world will have had to wrestle those two squabbling children, many times. One of the keys to clearly identifying the brief is ensuring that they are in balance, and that budget generally matches requirement.

So in a similar vein to the ones I mentioned earlier, some examples in our arena, the Design & Build of exhibition stands, could be:

1)????? An exhibitor has a sudden need to add content that wasn’t planned or known about before. The only real options are to secure additional budget, or failing that to reduce the quality of some of the stand.

2)????? An exhibitor needs to enhance the stand quality, as his bosses from overseas are suddenly planning to visit the show. Again, additional budget would need to be found, or failing that, maybe the stand space could be reduced, through conversation with the show organiser (less space to fill, more budget per m2).

3)????? An exhibitor has his show budget reduced; options would be to either reduce the content of the stand (lose the LED wall), or reduce the quality of finishes (laminate flooring changed for carpet).

So are there any tricks...?

In Design & Build, is there any way to unlock the Impossible Triangle... any way to liberate the Triple Constraint…?

One option is to consider the use of stock items. Maybe your selected supplier has several stock reception units, bars or work-stations. Ask… maybe they’re not too different from the bespoke designed version, and an exchange to an existing/hired item could free up some budget for use elsewhere in the project, where you do need to keep to a more bespoke route.

Owning items after the show. Many contractors are happy to consider this, and even if there’s a slight price increase (and that’s by no means always the case), it may enable an exhibitor to put the cost of the purchased item in a different capital budget. Even if that’s not possible, the sustainable future-life of the item could provide added-value that justifies a little extra spend. This is also a great option for graphic panels or TFS fabrics (being re-used in offices, board rooms etc.)

Or maybe a multi-show deal. Exhibitors could consider their next show, or maybe the next two. Would the contractor improve the price a little to help budgets, in return for a commitment to partner on a programme of events...? ?Linked with the stock-items option, this can work particularly well, and it’s certainly a go-to option for my customers. Other spin-off benefits are that the exhibitor doesn’t have to invest more time briefing for the future shows…the re-use is designed in already, and 2-way trust is certainly built.

In a similar way, if an exhibitor starts their initial briefing / design process early, many contractors will be more willing to offer a better cost given the forward-order-book principle.

Another option could be payment terms. Some contractors will improve their total price if payment terms are improved in their favour.

So it seems that a pretty analytical and (let’s be honest), irrelevant-sounding management tool, could be really useful for suppliers and exhibitors who find themselves in a tricky position, where the project goals have to be re-assessed.

Maybe by considering the options I’ve suggested (and others no doubt), the 3-Sided Polygon of Eternal Pain (see…I have just given it another name), could actually prove quite useful.

It seems that we were wrong all those years.

There are actually 3 sides to every argument.

?

Happy triangulating.

?