Tournament Triple Constraint Model

A popular joke about project management goes like this: “All projects can be done well, fast, and cheap. Pick two.” That joke is based on the triple constraint theory of project management. It is elegantly conceptualized as a triangle that represents the trade-offs between scope, cost, and time. The idea is that changes to any of those vertices forces adjustment in one or both of the other two. I recently had the revelation that I had been unconsciously using the triple constraint model as I have been ruminating on tournament scheduling, draw formats, and ranking systems.

The following diagram is the traditional project management triple constraint triad. (Email readers with privacy settings that block images should view this post directly on my site.)

In project management parlance, “Scope” is the magnitude of the project. In software, scope encompasses the features and functions of the system. Alternatively, in construction, scope can be conceptualized as the size and features of a building.

Cost reflects the resources required to execute the project. This includes things like people, tools, and source material. The final aspect of the model is the amount of time that it takes to complete the project.

Project management is the effective planning and trade-off decisions between the three constraints of scope, cost (resources), and time. Quality captures the attributes of how well the objectives of the project were ultimately achieved.

Based on how cavalier some people are about requesting special accommodations from tournament organizers, my perception is that a lot of tennis players are blissfully unaware of the complexities of planning and scheduling an event. A “simple” request to move match times around to suit an individual player’s personal schedule can create court capacity issues for the tournament. The changes can ripple through to schedule impacts for other players.

I am launching into an extended series examining tournament formats that produce enough participation and matches required for a robust ranking system. The following diagram is the tennis specific model I had been unconsciously using to think through the trade-offs.

Scope has been roughly translated to the number of players, but it can also include complexity factors such as players who enter more than one division. Resources roughly includes court capacity, but also includes things like tournament desk personnel and officials. Finally, there is the calendar time that equates to the duration of the tournament.

I have elected to frame out “Quality” as the format of play. A 128 player draw using Feed in Consolation through the Quarters (FICQ) with full best of three set matches would be a high fidelity form of play. That format requires a lot of calendar time and court capacity.

Alternatively, the same number of players could participate in a single elimination draw with voluntary consolation using the “Fast4” format. That would reduce both the court capacity and calendar time required, but is a lower quality form of competition.

Tomorrow’s post examines how the calendar duration of tournaments potentially impacts player participation at various levels of the USTA 7 tier framework. We will also examine some constraints imposed by the USTA Regulations. This tennis specific constraint model is useful for conceptualizing the trade-offs required to make it all work.