With the English term, ‘time-to-market’, the orientation on the quality focus ‘speed’ is embraced in organisations. Economic success, in ever more branches, markets and product lines, depends upon the product being able to be sold at an (early) point in time. Adhering to product development deadlines and delivery dates often results in intense competition with quality criteria, ISO-standards or other product quality requirements. The polarity of the guiding distinction quality focus (underpinned by cost pressure) thus becomes a constant stress factor for the project managers, on whose shoulders the duty then rests to take all this into account in equal measure. Thus, many concepts and training programmes for project management in the last twenty years revolved around managing the polarity thorough/quick.
If one follows our metatheoretical model, then the most important thing here is that the management has goal conflict competences available to them. A common mistake is delegating the pressure of the goal conflict downwards (“Let me know what the solution is!”) instead of – to put it bluntly – establishing ‘war rooms’, in which the interest conflicts can be addressed without fear, across hierarchy and function. Otherwise, the ‘time-to-market’ will be adhered to but the thoroughness focus suffers in the incorrect, usually opaque area, or it is endlessly delayed (all projects are red in the BSC logic), without it being clear, at which place compromises must ultimately be made. Ultimately, the compromises are, however, almost always worse than would have been necessary.