Why Stripe CEO Patrick Collison is not a fan of "Good, Cheap, Fast"—choose two.

You've probably heard the old project management adage: "Good, fast, cheap - pick two." The idea is that you can't optimize for all three - you have to sacrifice one. Want it good and fast? It won't be cheap. Want it good and cheap? It won't be fast. Want it fast and cheap? It won't be good.

But Patrick Collison, co-founder of Stripe, has a different take. In a thought-provoking tweet, he suggests this maxim is actually "devious misinformation spread by the slow."

Increasingly believe that the "good, cheap, fast—choose two" maxim is devious misinformation spread by the slow.

In my experience, "slow" and "expensive" usually go together. I was in a meeting yesterday where lopping a year off a project schedule also ended up reducing the cost substantially. Fundamentally, it takes time to spend, and adding the temporal constraint tends to make things simpler and more efficient.

Patrick Collison, CEO of Stripe

The Real Relationship Between Speed and Cost

Collison argues that in his experience, "slow" and "expensive" usually go hand in hand. He shares an example where reducing a project timeline by an entire year also substantially decreased its cost.

This might seem counterintuitive at first. Shouldn't rushing things cost more? Not necessarily, and here's why:

1. Time Itself Costs Money: The longer a project runs, the more overhead costs accumulate. Think salaries, office space, equipment, and other resources that need to be maintained throughout the project duration.

2. Simplicity Through Constraints: When faced with tight time constraints, teams are forced to focus on what truly matters. This often leads to simpler, more efficient solutions that are both cheaper to implement and maintain.

3. Decision Velocity: Faster timelines require quicker decision-making. This can actually lead to better outcomes as teams avoid analysis paralysis and endless rounds of revisions.

The Hidden Cost of Slow

The traditional "pick two" model misses a crucial point: slowness itself can be a major source of complexity and cost. When projects drag on:

• Requirements tend to change and expand
• Team members come and go, requiring knowledge transfer
• Technical debt accumulates
• Market conditions shift
• Motivation and momentum decrease

A Better Way to Think About It

Instead of viewing good, fast, and cheap as mutually exclusive, consider them as potentially reinforcing qualities. Speed can drive simplicity, which reduces costs while maintaining or even improving quality.

This doesn't mean every project can be good, fast, AND cheap. But it does suggest we shouldn't automatically assume we need to sacrifice one. Sometimes, the path to better and cheaper work is through faster execution.

The Takeaway

The next time someone tells you to "pick two," challenge that assumption. Ask yourself: - Could moving faster actually reduce costs? - Are we adding complexity (and cost) by moving too slowly? - Could time constraints help us find simpler, better solutions?

As Collison's experience shows, sometimes the best way to optimize for all three - good, fast, and cheap - is to start by optimizing for speed.