When using a project triangle to illustrate conflicting priorities, Microsoft suggests that if the problem is in the fixed leg, work on the other two legs. For example, if the project must not exceed the budget and it is starting to run over, adjust the schedule, or the scope, or both. However, if the problem is not related to the fixed leg, the adjustment might have to be in the remaining leg. So, when faced with an inflexible budget (fixed leg) and the schedule is slipping (problem leg), the projects scope (remaining leg) might have to be adjusted. Why is explaining this situation to management sometimes a very difficult task for the systems analyst?