The following examples, taken from actual development project experience, illustrate how a change in one of the Anchors can effect changes in other Anchors during a development project.

1.      The Project Costs must be based on a thorough, up-front analysis of the product, market, production, service and project requirements. When this is done, funding is negotiated with a funding entity; if the granted funds are less than required, then appropriate adjustments are made in the project requirements. This must be done initially or the project will be unwittingly primed for several "trips back to the well", or funding 'surprises'. Even if the costs are well thought out initially, a trip back to the well may be required, because it's very difficult for a team to predict all the perturbations that may arise. But, 'many trips back' are what cause investors to lose confidence.

A corporation discovered a financial problem which, for whatever reason, required a decrease in the Project Costs for a development project in process:

• Resources were cut to fit the new funding limits.
• The project needed to be redefined & restructured - the schedule slipped.
• Design talent was limited so product characteristics suffered - some features were deleted, weakening the product.
• The COM increased because of less time to research & design low cost approaches.

2.      A consultant engineer was initially contracted to add a required knowledge and skill to the project, but he was not reliably paid during the project (the Agreement was not serviced). The consultant stopped work until payment was brought up to date:

• The schedule slipped.
• The product design suffered since inadequate in-house design talent was used in the interim.
• The COM increased because of less experienced development skills.

3.      A development project Schedule was shortened because of market pressure to ship the new product:

• Consultants were required to add design resources and employee overtime compensation was needed, thus the project costs had to be increased.
• Two important product features were dropped for lack of development and testing time in order to meet the new schedule.
• Testing was abbreviated and the product quality & reliability were jeopardized.
• Overtime compensation was given to the development team, so the project cost increased.
• The contract manufacturer was required to design and debug manufacturing test equipment, raising the project costs and adding delay to the process.

4.      Adequate project Management tools, used to set up a System to monitor a project, were later neglected because of seat-of-the-pants management style, driven by inexperience and fueled by eventual panic:

• The planned schedule was strayed from in the confusion, and the team members became frustrated and inefficient causing the schedule to slip.
• Some aspects of the project required 're-spinning', which necessitated an increase in the project costs and further schedule delays.
• Some of the risk areas were lost sight of, eventually creating costly recurring testing in manufacturing - the product costs (COM) increased.