My original point, though: if you don’t provide compensation, you cannot expect the best quality in the shortest of times. Excuse my digression, though.

I do think this is a great explanation on the whole quality vs. time issue. There’s been talk about this lately, and yours is the best article I’ve read so far.

Compensation can take many forms. Most commonly, it’s money. It can also be self-esteem, pride, recognition, what have you.

In other words, your motivation includes your desire to be compensated. No matter what that compensation might be.

In this sense, compensation is the third leg.

Horia: I do not agree that compensation is the third leg of time and quality. Monetary compensation may be important, just as product revenue may be important. But I would not work with someone who told me he would do better work only if I paid him more.

Still, you said nothing about the third part of the software triangle: money. Or compensation, to generalize.

The rule is that there needs to be a balance. If two points are high( like short time and good quality ) the third point must also be high( more compensation ).
When working for free, this is automatically satisfied because the compensation you really get is how you feel about the job — do a good job fast and you feel great!

When we bring this into the business realm, though, it’s no longer only about developers shipping out a great product. It’s also about compensation.

PS: I love the design of this site!