In my experience, nothing is ever perfect. Someone up the chain is always going to revise something, and the later you turn it in, the more stressful it's going to be for everyone. So I would always turn in my best possible work on time.

I'm thinking of the consultants we're working with right now. They're late getting a draft of the report they're working on for us. We know that we're going to have comments and revisions on it, but we can't even do that until they give us something to look at. I'd much rather have something to work with on time than have something late.

In theatre, what I do is give the designer choices. So-- do you want this finished by tech rehearsal so they can use it OR do you want it to be perfect but I won't finish until final dress. In theatre it pretty much has to be finished by opening night, perfect or not so often the options include some other solution that is faster and sometimes better, and sometimes more creative. Of course the trouble is when you have a designer perfectionist. I slaved and slaved over an evening dress which was super hard, and he really wanted it perfect, and then he painted it with mud and put a sweater over it. I could have saved myself a lot of aggravation having that dress be 'good enough'

In the office I do not have a lot of hard deadlines, so if it is a boss deadline (as opposed to an event happening, which, like theatre has to be done when it is supposed to), I also ask which is the priority.

If it is my choice, I will take done well, on time, but not perfect.

Or, as the sign at many printers says,

"Good. Fast. Cheap. Pick two."

The candidates try that all the time.

As well they should--it's the PM triple restraint for a reason. If the question doesn't state that resources are fixed, I think it's the correct first answer (full disclosure--I got dinged on an interview for not knowing the constraints like the back of my hand, so it's forefront of my brain).

However, I think the only useful answer to that question lies in corporate culture, and also varies from project to project. I've done either, and times either has been the best thing to do, or neither. My preferences have nothing to do with what guarantees the success of any given project.

I'm sure an interviewer doesn't like that, but after fifteen years of managing projects, you aren't getting anything more definitive than that out of me.

I think the only useful answer to that question lies in corporate culture

Isn't that what makes it a good interview question, though?

Right -- the best answer depends on everything, including the level of the person you are hiring, their role, corporate culture, what the task is, etc. So if you're interviewing for a PM job, you'd better understand the nuances. But if you're interviewing for an entry-level grants management job, you'd better understand a deadline.

Isn't that what makes it a good interview question, though?

Not if I don't know corporate culture, no. Unless you want me to toss it back and say "It's not about me--it may not even be about you. It's about the business owner and the specific project priorities."

As an interviewer, I'd just be looking for people who had a definite answer either way, and marking them down whichever side they picked.

In my job, we set the deadline so quality is more important. In my previous job deadlines were probably more important but the real answer is "superhumanly turn in perfect work by deadline." But anyway, as an interviewee I wouldn't necessarily know which is more important. It's a question that seem slightly unfair to me, given how much it depends on knowledge of the culture.

Not Paul Bettany issue, though.

I'd take it. As long as he was part of the long-term deal.

Breaking in to say that today is National Bittersweet Chocolate Day.